Related

Officials in the higher echelons of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) are stumped by defence minister A. K. Antony's written response to a question in the Rajya Sabha.

The minister had said: "Deficiencies have been detected in the airframe and other associated equipment of the (Tejas Navy) aircraft. The DRDO is working out modalities with various organisations for rectifying these deficiencies by suitable modifications to the engine/airframe design."

Though no one in the DRDO was willing to go on record, a senior project official of the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft in Bangalore said a problem with the "airframe" could not arise simply because the prototype was still being built.

"We have built the external structure. We are now fitting the internal equipment like electricals, hydraulics and plumbing," he said, adding that the aerodynamics of the naval version of Tejas was the same as that of the two-seater trainer version flown in November last. "But since the structural load on the naval Tejas will be much higher, its airframe will have to be tougher," he added.

Officials at the DRDO headquarters said they had sent a draft response to the question Antony answered in Parliament. " We wonder where the mix- up between our response and the minister's reply could have occurred," an official said.

As the system for replies to Parliament posers go, the question is first processed by a Parliament cell of the defence ministry and then sent to the department or agency to which it pertains.

Based on these inputs, a draft reply is prepared and then vetted by a designated joint secretary and then the defence secretary. Then it reaches the minister's office where it is once again examined by his private secretary. For a 'misinformation' to pass through scrutiny of so many experienced hands is a rarity.

Do You Like This Story? Awesome! Now share the story Too bad. Tell us what you didn't like in the comments